As to the two last postings above: Not quite sure which answer exceeding those on pages 5 and 16 of my Q&A presentation is expected, so assumed these questions were actually already handeled. If, however, I missed something technical to answer, please remind me and I will do.

If a player is found to be breaking the rules, or even if there is a number of strikes policy for a particular breaking of the rules, it is public.

We amateur players are asking if a ball or any other manufacturer is found breaking the rules if their sanctioning is public in the same way, and if not, make it so.

For example there are rules regarding characteristics of balls. We players can count how many balls in a box are simply not round for example, and see in tournaments the horrible longevity of the DHS 40+ balls that have been used for another example, necessitating a clarification to umpires of what is to occur if a ball breaks in the middle of a rally, and the practice of issuing new balls every so many games.

It seems that no-one is accountable for the situation that there has been with the plastic balls, although it does seem to be getting better (the situation, not the accountability).

First I am glad to hear, again, that it is now getting better. In my view, one of the reasons for this is that accountability for quality deficiencies clearly lies with the manufacturers. And that they were aware of this and did not push it away. When the ITTF random testing of balls produced some failures, we could observe the information flow between the supplier affected and (if not OEM) his manufacturer. It could clearly be seen that this led to the improvements in design (rather than to denying responsibilities) which is now reflected in balls approved 2016 or later. Of course, those will also be randomly tested.

As to a complete disclosure of failed quality checks, I can only report that I do not see any tendency in ITTF's governing bodys to change this policy.

I have heard rumours, that most of the 40+ balls already approved, may be ceased to be approved in the nearest future (because allegedly they are not 100% non-celluoid). This is supposed to have something to do with the intro of balls like DHS D40+. Is it true?

That is fully up to the manufacturers. We do not have indication by them that they plan to stop the approval of the 1st generation non-cell balls very shortly, but in the mid-term future we expect this to happen for economic reasons: If they feel they now have put an improved ball to the market, which may also be produced at lower cost due to more sophisticated material, then why should they continue forever with the older one.

The chemical argument I cannot confirm. Our own analysis (ca. 2 years ago with the 1st generation balls) does not indicate that the balls contain residuals of celluloid.

Thanks. Actually, I haven't made myself clear - by approval I meant ITTF approval and I was wondering whether ITTF is planning to remove most of the poly balls from the ITTF approved balls list (because of the introduction of these 'new' gen balls like DHS D40+).

Thanks. Actually, I haven't made myself clear - by approval I meant ITTF approval and I was wondering whether ITTF is planning to remove most of the poly balls from the ITTF approved balls list (because of the introduction of these 'new' gen balls like DHS D40+).

But judging from your post - these are just rumours, am I right?

The way it works is, as long as the balls meet the required specs AND the manufacturer renews the fee to have it certified, then it will remain on the approved list. If either condition fails, the ball is removed from the approved list.

Yes, GMan4911 is 100% correct.And if a ball continues to meet the specs, this is tested randomly by "mystery shopping", i.e. we buy them from retail without any prior announcement and send them to the lab.

So, yes, it would just be a rumour that we (ITTF) are planning to remove approvals systematically.

Yes, GMan4911 is 100% correct.And if a ball continues to meet the specs, this is tested randomly by "mystery shopping", i.e. we buy them from retail without any prior announcement and send them to the lab.

So, yes, it would just be a rumour that we (ITTF) are planning to remove approvals systematically.

I'm sure it used to be you. Have you moved postion within the Equipment Committee?

No, everything stays the same. Vicky is the professional staff (which I do mean in terms of being paid and in terms of the quality of her work) in charge of equipment in the ITTF office. She has been covering this position -amongst other duties- for the last years. She is handling, for example, all approval processes, daily communication with manufacturers and suppliers, etc.

She is not a member of the Equipment Committee, as I and 13 other people are. Committee Member is not a job position, it's a volunteer's position of being a, say, field expert or advisor or analyst, etc.

the situation currently seems to be that the new generation ABS balls will more or less eliminate defensive play for good.Is the ITTF aware of this situation? Are there any plans to do something to rescue defensive play (like, e.g. reverse the aspect ratio change or introduce a new ball specification regarding minimum spin), or is the ITTF content with the coming loss of diversity in playing styles?

the situation currently seems to be that the new generation ABS balls will more or less eliminate defensive play for good.Is the ITTF aware of this situation? Are there any plans to do something to rescue defensive play (like, e.g. reverse the aspect ratio change or introduce a new ball specification regarding minimum spin), or is the ITTF content with the coming loss of diversity in playing styles?

I am not Torsten, but I think that the question you ask is one that would have to be dealt with at a higher level than the Equipment committee, ball subcommittee. The reason I say this is that at least one of your suggestions is regarding the racket covering.

I also wonder whether specifying a minimum and maximum co-efficient of friction for the ball, both when it is unused and after several hours of use might rescue defensive play. I say this because that measurement is relatively easy and measurement of "spin" is fraught with difficulties.

Another issue may be solved by introducing the maximum & minimum co-efficient of friction for the playing surface of tables.

Edited to add: what makes you think that the ITTF cares about defensive play? Has any of their actions since and including the introduction of inverted rubber made defensive play any better?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:

Jump to:

Copyright 2012 OOAK Table Tennis Forum. The information on this site cannot be reused without written permission.